CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

No Valid Reason to Grant Higher Pay Scale Only to a Specific Category: Supreme Court Upholds Recovery of Pay Scale Benefits from Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Officers

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India dismissed appeals challenging the withdrawal of special pay scale benefits granted to Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Officers in the State of Uttarakhand. The Court, led by Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal, upheld the decision for recovery of these benefits from officers who had superannuated.

The crux of the judgment revolved around the legality of various government orders that initially extended enhanced pay scale benefits to a particular group of government employees. The decision, dated January 10, 2024, critically examined the administrative and policy decisions taken by different government departments over the years concerning the pay scales of State Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Service Cadre.

In their observation, the apex court stated, "We find no error in the view taken by the State Government as there was no valid reason to grant a higher pay scale only to the Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Officers after continuous satisfactory service of 8 years, whereas, for all other Government servants, satisfactory continuous service of 10 years was required." This statement became a pivotal point in the Court’s decision to uphold the State Government's action of recovery.

The case was closely watched due to its implications on government service regulations and the treatment of different employee cadres within the state machinery. The Supreme Court's decision sends a clear message on the uniform application of government policies and the need for equitable treatment across different sectors of the government workforce.

The judgment also referenced the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, specifically Section 86, and various other government orders, highlighting the intricate legal framework governing such administrative decisions.

Date of Decision: 10th January 2024

Dr. Balbir Singh Bhandari VS The State of Uttarakhand & Ors.   

 

Latest Legal News